Satanic_Hamster:Page isn't loading for me. Don't suppose I could get a summary?

I finally got through it was pretty anti-climactic. Basically she criticized the southern baptists for criticizing the boy scouts for allowing gay kids to join. They didn't like it and asked her husband to resign.

Egoy3k:Satanic_Hamster: Page isn't loading for me. Don't suppose I could get a summary?

I finally got through it was pretty anti-climactic. Basically she criticized the southern baptists for criticizing the boy scouts for allowing gay kids to join. They didn't like it and asked her husband to resign.

So, she acted like an actual Christian and they acted like a bunch of hypocrites. Seems to me they should be the ones resigning. Turn in your casserole dishes at the door...or go join the bigoted idiots in Topeka--declare your crazy for everyone to see and make your hatred and anti-Christianity abundantly clear instead of clothing it in respectability.

Egoy3k:Satanic_Hamster: Page isn't loading for me. Don't suppose I could get a summary?

I finally got through it was pretty anti-climactic. Basically she criticized the southern baptists for criticizing the boy scouts for allowing gay kids to join. They didn't like it and asked her husband to resign.

That doesn't surprise me. I seen a Baptist church that would fire the pastor for allowing boy scouts to wear shorts.

/not kidding//no one could wear shorts even during SC summers///I quit hanging out with them during the summer

Egoy3k:Satanic_Hamster: Page isn't loading for me. Don't suppose I could get a summary?

I finally got through it was pretty anti-climactic. Basically she criticized the southern baptists for criticizing the boy scouts for allowing gay kids to join. They didn't like it and asked her husband to resign.

copypasta of FBXRD link

A humor column in a Kentucky newspaper that made fun of the Southern Baptist Convention's opposition to the Boy Scouts of America decision to admit gay members, even referring to the convention as "shiate Baptists," could cost the writer's husband his job as an associate pastor and minister of music at First Baptist Church of Madisonville, an SBC congregation, Savannah Oglesby reports for The Messenger of Madisonville.

Angela Thomas, a regular columnist for the daily paper, wrote: "Some might assume that because the Boy Scouts have addressed the issue, it must mean that Scout packs are filled with 10-year-old boys insisting on wearing their Scout caps at a rakish tilt and over-accessorizing their uniforms. ... Sexuality doesn't come up and isn't relative to typical Scouting activities but now, thanks to Southern Baptists, the parents of little innocent Scouts everywhere are having to have The Talk. The Boy Scouts of America has been forced to confront this issue and cannot hide behind the freedom granted to religious organizations like the Southern Baptist Convention to condemn certain behaviors they deem unacceptable and excluded people based on their interpretation of the Bible."

In addition to the Scouts, Thomas wrote, the convention also rejects "the Democratic Party, Disney, the TeleTubbies, and any Baptists that aren't Southern," Thomas wrote. "Southern Baptists have little by little abandoned public schools and civic organizations. They are too sanctimonious to participate in Easter egg hunts and trick-or-treating. Santa and the Easter bunny are simply the devil in disguise, and cable television and the Internet are his playground. The Boy Scouts are his evil minions."

Thomas told Oglesby that the church asked the writer's husband, Bill Thomas, to resign, and he declined, sending "a letter requesting more dialogue with the personnel committee. We haven't heard an official response back from that, and that was on Monday." The newspaper couldn't reach the pastor for comment.

Thomas said her husband was asked about the column and replied, "I did read it, I agreed with what she said and I don't censor what my wife does." Oglesby's story concluded, "She said a celebration of her husband's 10 years of service at the church was scheduled for July 7, but for now, the event has been canceled."

The Messenger, which has a pay-per-view website, has received two letters to the editor, one criticizing the column and one supporting it.

A humor column in a Kentucky newspaper that made fun of the Southern Baptist Convention's opposition to the Boy Scouts of America decision to admit gay members, even referring to the convention as "shiate Baptists," could cost the writer's husband his job as an associate pastor and minister of music at First Baptist Church of Madisonville, an SBC congregation, Savannah Oglesby reports for The Messenger of Madisonville.

(From Wikipedia Commons)Angela Thomas, a regular columnist for the daily paper, wrote: "Some might assume that because the Boy Scouts have addressed the issue, it must mean that Scout packs are filled with 10-year-old boys insisting on wearing their Scout caps at a rakish tilt and over-accessorizing their uniforms. ... Sexuality doesn't come up and isn't relative to typical Scouting activities but now, thanks to Southern Baptists, the parents of little innocent Scouts everywhere are having to have The Talk. The Boy Scouts of America has been forced to confront this issue and cannot hide behind the freedom granted to religious organizations like the Southern Baptist Convention to condemn certain behaviors they deem unacceptable and excluded people based on their interpretation of the Bible."

In addition to the Scouts, Thomas wrote, the convention also rejects "the Democratic Party, Disney, the TeleTubbies, and any Baptists that aren't Southern," Thomas wrote. "Southern Baptists have little by little abandoned public schools and civic organizations. They are too sanctimonious to participate in Easter egg hunts and trick-or-treating. Santa and the Easter bunny are simply the devil in disguise, and cable television and the Internet are his playground. The Boy Scouts are his evil minions."

Thomas told Oglesby that the church asked the writer's husband, Bill Thomas, to resign, and he declined, sending "a letter requesting more dialogue with the personnel committee. We haven't heard an official response back from that, and that was on Monday." The newspaper couldn't reach the pastor for comment.

Thomas said her husband was asked about the column and replied, "I did read it, I agreed with what she said and I don't censor what my wife does." Oglesby's story concluded, "She said a celebration of her husband's 10 years of service at the church was scheduled for July 7, but for now, the event has been canceled."

The Messenger, which has a pay-per-view website, has received two letters to the editor, one criticizing the column and one supporting it.

Aigoo:Egoy3k: Satanic_Hamster: Page isn't loading for me. Don't suppose I could get a summary?

I finally got through it was pretty anti-climactic. Basically she criticized the southern baptists for criticizing the boy scouts for allowing gay kids to join. They didn't like it and asked her husband to resign.

So, she acted like an actual Christian and they acted like a bunch of hypocrites. Seems to me they should be the ones resigning. Turn in your casserole dishes at the door...or go join the bigoted idiots in Topeka--declare your crazy for everyone to see and make your hatred and anti-Christianity abundantly clear instead of clothing it in respectability.

So what they're saying is that the husband is responsible for everything the wife does...? What's he supposed to be, follow her around and approve all her writings first?

My parents left the church they'd been attending for the better part of 20 years when the pastor made a reference to God punishing people who partake in communion "in an unworthy manner" by making them sick. That pastor and the pastors before him had quoted the same scriptures to make the same point many times while I attended that church as a child, along with a lot of pious rhetoric about how "the prayer of faith will heal the sick," etc.

It was the same message that had been preached from the same pulpit dozens of times, but my parents objected to it that time because my mother was dying of cancer, and they interpreted the message as a backhanded way of implying that she hadn't been healed because she was insufficiently pious or didn't have enough faith.

When my dad told me the story several years after she died, I didn't have a response - at least not one I could tell him. On the one hand, having experienced religious "friends" turn on me overnight when I left Christianity, I knew precisely how horrible it can be. On the other hand, my parents had been in complete agreement with the doctrine of this church as for the better part of 20 years as they promoted it to all their friends, subjected their kids to pious mindfarking, and shunned other families who left the church over other disagreements. It hadn't even occurred to them that there might be a problem until the lens of ecclesial disapproval was turned on them. To this day, I still can't productively discuss the issue with my dad.

My point is: when you participate in an organization that eats its wounded, don't be surprised if it happens to you.

/ lots of you are now thinking "my church isn't lke that"// many of you are in for a rude awakening

mafiageek1980:Valiente: mafiageek1980: I thought it was pretty damn cool to see her Husband defend her and stuff. Go lady! More Christians should be like them!

Get real: If more Christians were like them, there would be fewer Christians, and who wants a smaller sponge?

You think? I mean, I thought the whole message of being a Christian is love?

If you're a true Christian, that is, a follower of the teachings of Christ, then yes it is. He told his followers to love one another as they love themselves, and spoke against the hatred and vitriol of the church of his day. He even flipped some tables at a synagogue, such was his contempt for the religious leadership back then.

Unfortunately a large number of today's "Christians" are actually a bunch of heathens still worshiping some god from the Old Testament, including his lust for blood, hatred of any race (tribe) but his own, and propensity for striking dead anyone who comes within a mile of breaking one of the ten commandments. That was a hateful, vengeful, spiteful god yet we are supposed to believe it is the same god who fathered Christ, the most loving and humble human ever to walk the earth (if the New Testament is accurate).

The Boy Scouts of America has been forced to confront this issue and cannot hide behind the freedom granted to religious organizations like the Southern Baptist Convention to condemn certain behaviors they deem unacceptable and excluded people based on their interpretation of the Bible.

I put put money in her basket.

Through victory an entirely new social order was to be established that would alter the relationship between the races forever. Unlike so many other Southerners, Lee embraced the new order. After peace had been achieved through unconditional surrender, the South became a vast, heavily occupied military zone with black Union soldiers seemingly everywhere.One Sunday at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Richmond, a well-dressed, lone black man, whom no one in the community-white or black-had ever seen before, had attended the service, sitting unnoticed in the last pew.Just before communion was to be distributed, he rose and proudly walked down the center aisle through the middle of the church where all could see him and approached the communion rail, where he knelt. The priest and the congregation were completely aghast and in total shock.No one knew what to do...except General Lee. He went to the communion rail and knelt beside the black man and they received communion together-and then a steady flow of other church members followed the example he had set.After the service was over, the black man was never to be seen in Richmond again. It was as if he had been sent down from a higher place purposefully for that particular occasion.

arashinogarou:mafiageek1980: Valiente: mafiageek1980: I thought it was pretty damn cool to see her Husband defend her and stuff. Go lady! More Christians should be like them!

Get real: If more Christians were like them, there would be fewer Christians, and who wants a smaller sponge?

You think? I mean, I thought the whole message of being a Christian is love?

If you're a true Christian, that is, a follower of the teachings of Christ, then yes it is. He told his followers to love one another as they love themselves, and spoke against the hatred and vitriol of the church of his day. He even flipped some tables at a synagogue, such was his contempt for the religious leadership back then.

Unfortunately a large number of today's "Christians" are actually a bunch of heathens still worshiping some god from the Old Testament, including his lust for blood, hatred of any race (tribe) but his own, and propensity for striking dead anyone who comes within a mile of breaking one of the ten commandments. That was a hateful, vengeful, spiteful god yet we are supposed to believe it is the same god who fathered Christ, the most loving and humble human ever to walk the earth (if the New Testament is accurate).

You do realize that a very large chunk of the New Testament, including rhe sayings atrributed to Jesus, can be summarized as "get your shiat together,because divinely-mandated ass-kickings are going to be dispensed in the near future," don't you? The Sermon on the Mount is a very small part of the book of Matthew...

Hey dislike the religion all you like but those motherfarkers can cook. No for real growing up we went to Big Creek Baptist and the pastor was an amazing guy named David Cook. After he left some new pastor showed up and he was a prick,yeah Witnesses are weird but you shouldn't call them out during a sermon, so that was the last time we went to church./Boring story sis.

Satanic_Hamster:Aigoo: Egoy3k: Satanic_Hamster: Page isn't loading for me. Don't suppose I could get a summary?

I finally got through it was pretty anti-climactic. Basically she criticized the southern baptists for criticizing the boy scouts for allowing gay kids to join. They didn't like it and asked her husband to resign.

So, she acted like an actual Christian and they acted like a bunch of hypocrites. Seems to me they should be the ones resigning. Turn in your casserole dishes at the door...or go join the bigoted idiots in Topeka--declare your crazy for everyone to see and make your hatred and anti-Christianity abundantly clear instead of clothing it in respectability.

So what they're saying is that the husband is responsible for everything the wife does...? What's he supposed to be, follow her around and approve all her writings first?

yes, and vise versa, a married couple are as one, they are both responsable for each others actions and words.

Satanic_Hamster:Aigoo: Egoy3k: Satanic_Hamster: Page isn't loading for me. Don't suppose I could get a summary?

I finally got through it was pretty anti-climactic. Basically she criticized the southern baptists for criticizing the boy scouts for allowing gay kids to join. They didn't like it and asked her husband to resign.

So, she acted like an actual Christian and they acted like a bunch of hypocrites. Seems to me they should be the ones resigning. Turn in your casserole dishes at the door...or go join the bigoted idiots in Topeka--declare your crazy for everyone to see and make your hatred and anti-Christianity abundantly clear instead of clothing it in respectability.

So what they're saying is that the husband is responsible for everything the wife does...? What's he supposed to be, follow her around and approve all her writings first?

Clearly you've read the Apostle Paul, history's first recorded BDSM Kink-positive holy man (though a lot people think he took the whole "Gorean" sub-fetish a bit too far):Colossians 3:17"Wives, Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. "

1 Corinthians 13:24 "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says "

1 Timothy 2:12 " do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. "

RealAmericanHero:Woman tells truth about religious people. Religious people respond by portraying the same negative behavior they always do and taking petty revenge.

Just another day in the world.

Yup. With some of those churches if you aren't dressed the right way they talk shiat about you. Growing up my fiance had a seizure at a church him and his mom went to and they asked her not to come back. He was just a little kid who was having a seizure,he didn't need their bullshiat. He's never been back to a church since and I can't blame him because I know how those kind of churches filled with assholes like that work.

Bloody William:Not seeing a lot of loving your neighbor or turning the other cheek here. Or any sort of forgiveness. Real Christian.

Eh, forgiveness in Christanity is contingent on 1.) Repentence and 2.) Begging for it. That's why the first step of your typical born-again evangelist is to get you to admit to being a sinner. Saying "I didn't do anything wrong" and not groveling is a sure-fire way to find yourself out on your ass.

/ This is also why churches "accept" gay people on the condition that they admit they're horrible and promise to never have sex

joeflood:Ah, Southern Baptists. Where the deacons meet to vote whether those two half-negro children can attend church because mixing of the races is a sin according to the bible. Full black is fine.

Ya'll remember that story a while back about the church in Kentucky that wouldn't let the interracial couple attend? I know Ticha and I swear it's sad cause he's the most polite and sweetest guy. He went to college with my sister.

This is a photo off of Bill Thomas's facebook page. He is only an associate pastor at his church, and handles the music. He also teaches music down at the local community college. He has three kids, two boys about scouting age. Both he and his wife seem like really nice folks. I hope the local church defends him.

I grew up with those a******s as well. My father, who used to be a deacon and a highly respected member of the church in town was ostrasized and our entire family was viewed as breaking the faith when we moved out of town to the nearby country. The pastor gave two sermons in which my family was vilified to the entire town. What was our horrible crime?

We decided to attend the church that was a mile down the road as opposed to driving the four miles to the one in town. The church that was always considered the 'sister' church to the one in town, and used to have functions together to save money. After that, my father became an abusive alcoholic and pretty much lost everything. I wish he had had the courage to say STFU to those worthless baptists for trying to hurt him just because we were doing the same thing the two churches did... trying to save gas money.

Martian_Astronomer:arashinogarou: mafiageek1980: Valiente: mafiageek1980: I thought it was pretty damn cool to see her Husband defend her and stuff. Go lady! More Christians should be like them!

Get real: If more Christians were like them, there would be fewer Christians, and who wants a smaller sponge?

You think? I mean, I thought the whole message of being a Christian is love?

If you're a true Christian, that is, a follower of the teachings of Christ, then yes it is. He told his followers to love one another as they love themselves, and spoke against the hatred and vitriol of the church of his day. He even flipped some tables at a synagogue, such was his contempt for the religious leadership back then.

Unfortunately a large number of today's "Christians" are actually a bunch of heathens still worshiping some god from the Old Testament, including his lust for blood, hatred of any race (tribe) but his own, and propensity for striking dead anyone who comes within a mile of breaking one of the ten commandments. That was a hateful, vengeful, spiteful god yet we are supposed to believe it is the same god who fathered Christ, the most loving and humble human ever to walk the earth (if the New Testament is accurate).

You do realize that a very large chunk of the New Testament, including rhe sayings atrributed to Jesus, can be summarized as "get your shiat together,because divinely-mandated ass-kickings are going to be dispensed in the near future," don't you? The Sermon on the Mount is a very small part of the book of Matthew...

Sorry, I guess I should have bolded it. I saidif the New Testament is accurate . I didn't say any of it was true, just an observation of how different "god" is between the two parts of the bible and how modern Christians are quicker to hate like OT god than love like NT god.

arashinogarou:Sorry, I guess I should have bolded it. I said if the New Testament is accurate . I didn't say any of it was true, just an observation of how different "god" is between the two parts of the bible and how modern Christians are quicker to hate like OT god than love like NT god.

RealAmericanHero:Martian_Astronomer: Eh, forgiveness in Christanity is contingent on 1.) Repentence and 2.) Begging for it.

I'm no Christian by any means, but I used to be for a time and still know some, and I can say at least for a non-denominational protestant that is not how it works.

I was simplifying, and lost some nuance in doing so, but I do stand by that. The first step in "the ABC's" is "admit that you're a sinner" which is one of the first bits of pop-theology that springs to mind. Other examples showing this as a model for salvation include the story of the Prodigal Son, and the idea that Jesus died to save everyone, but he'll still punish you until you "accept" his forgiveness.

The main bit of nuance I left out was the difference between when God forgives you and whether or not you're supposed to forgive others if they haven't apologized. However, as far as church discipline is concerned, Paul devoted the better part of a chapter in one of his epistles to the proper way to confront a church member for wrong doctrine then toss them out if they don't repent. If you want citations, I can get them for you later.

/ other bits of nuance I left out include the discussion of not sinning as a condition of salvation vs not sinning as the evidence that you're "truely" saved

RealAmericanHero:Martian_Astronomer: Eh, forgiveness in Christanity is contingent on 1.) Repentence and 2.) Begging for it.

I'm no Christian by any means, but I used to be for a time and still know some, and I can say at least for a non-denominational protestant that is not how it works.

You're right. Repentance is a change of mind; a will to do what is right. It isn't begging God to forgive you constantly after each and every mistake or sin you've commit. This is why the Gospel, at least in the King James Bible, says that belief is sufficient. Today's modern translations wash down that message and introduce works-based or performance-based salvation. That is another gospel, and the Bible doesn't say very nice things about those who preach another gospel.

Halophilic:arashinogarou: Sorry, I guess I should have bolded it. I said if the New Testament is accurate . I didn't say any of it was true, just an observation of how different "god" is between the two parts of the bible and how modern Christians are quicker to hate like OT god than love like NT god.

Yes, because infinite torture for finite crimes is "love."

The NT is more obscene than the OT by infinity.

Hey, I was just contrasting OT god's "kill, crush, destroy each other" mentality with NT god's "love each other" mentality. But you do make a good point.

Martian_Astronomer:My parents left the church they'd been attending for the better part of 20 years when the pastor made a reference to God punishing people who partake in communion "in an unworthy manner" by making them sick. That pastor and the pastors before him had quoted the same scriptures to make the same point many times while I attended that church as a child, along with a lot of pious rhetoric about how "the prayer of faith will heal the sick," etc.

It was the same message that had been preached from the same pulpit dozens of times, but my parents objected to it that time because my mother was dying of cancer, and they interpreted the message as a backhanded way of implying that she hadn't been healed because she was insufficiently pious or didn't have enough faith.

When my dad told me the story several years after she died, I didn't have a response - at least not one I could tell him. On the one hand, having experienced religious "friends" turn on me overnight when I left Christianity, I knew precisely how horrible it can be. On the other hand, my parents had been in complete agreement with the doctrine of this church as for the better part of 20 years as they promoted it to all their friends, subjected their kids to pious mindfarking, and shunned other families who left the church over other disagreements. It hadn't even occurred to them that there might be a problem until the lens of ecclesial disapproval was turned on them. To this day, I still can't productively discuss the issue with my dad.

My point is: when you participate in an organization that eats its wounded, don't be surprised if it happens to you.

/ lots of you are now thinking "my church isn't lke that"// many of you are in for a rude awakening

Sorry to hear that. Not all churches are like that. Ours was very supportive when my mom was sick.

/UCC//We're a pretty progressive denomination///We support gay marriage and sex education, among other things

Satanic_Hamster:Aigoo: Egoy3k: Satanic_Hamster: Page isn't loading for me. Don't suppose I could get a summary?

I finally got through it was pretty anti-climactic. Basically she criticized the southern baptists for criticizing the boy scouts for allowing gay kids to join. They didn't like it and asked her husband to resign.

So, she acted like an actual Christian and they acted like a bunch of hypocrites. Seems to me they should be the ones resigning. Turn in your casserole dishes at the door...or go join the bigoted idiots in Topeka--declare your crazy for everyone to see and make your hatred and anti-Christianity abundantly clear instead of clothing it in respectability.

So what they're saying is that the husband is responsible for everything the wife does...? What's he supposed to be, follow her around and approve all her writings first?

Well God made man from a piece of clay and told him in his dying daySaid You're the boss I don't want no one above youHe gave him responsibility said you only answer unto Me If you'll do these things I'll make someone to love youHe took a piece of Adam's rib never gave a thought about women's libAnd He made the masterpiece of His creationNow just between you and me do you honestly believeHe wanted you to take my place in this nationAmerican woman why can't you agree God made man for Himself but He made you for meAmerican woman why can't you understandNow all you've got to do is love your all American man

Martian_Astronomer:You do realize that a very large chunk of the New Testament, including rhe sayings atrributed to Jesus, can be summarized as "get your shiat together,because divinely-mandated ass-kickings are going to be dispensed in the near future," don't you? The Sermon on the Mount is a very small part of the book of Matthew...

How so?I wouldnt say its as much about divinely mandated ass kickings as it is about reaping what you sow.

arashinogarou:Hey, I was just contrasting OT god's "kill, crush, destroy each other" mentality with NT god's "love each other" mentality. But you do make a good point.

I know you don't believe it, but I think letting the whole "new covenant" line perpetuate is something we can't let continue. The concept of Hell, and the idea that no matter how good you are if you think for yourself you're going there is infinitely more vile than all of the slaughters of the OT. Modern Christians using the NT as cover for the OT are just absurd.

"1 Corinthians 13:24 "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says "

1 Timothy 2:12 " do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. "

Both of these chapters were written after Christ's Crucifixion, known as the Epistles.Therefore, they do not have the same authority as what Christ said or the 10 Commandments.The struggles of the early church do not have to be ours, so let's not act like they are./context//it's important

once you go Soouthern Baptist, you never go back. Seriously awesome group, we get compared to everyone else, "Well among the many positives of our denomination/church: we have a friendly church, helpful staff, we're not as bad as the Southern Baptists ..." etc

Kurmudgeon:"1 Corinthians 13:24 "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says "

1 Timothy 2:12 " do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. "

Both of these chapters were written after Christ's Crucifixion, known as the Epistles.Therefore, they do not have the same authority as what Christ said or the 10 Commandments.The struggles of the early church do not have to be ours, so let's not act like they are./context//it's important

Yes, but the Gospels were also written a couple decades after the epistles, after a lot of Paul's theology became popular. Treating the gospels as purely antecedent is a mistake.

Martian_Astronomer:Yes, but the Gospels were also written a couple decades after the epistles, after a lot of Paul's theology became popular. Treating the gospels as purely antecedent the Bible as anything but pure fiction is a mistake.

Whoa, hold the phone! Are you trying to tell me that religious people are being humorless, hypocritical, judgmental, vindictive, reactionary asswipes who are overly sensitive to any criticism of their beliefs while openly condemning others? Did I fall asleep and wake up in bizarro world? I'm not sure I'm buying it.

netgamer7k:RealAmericanHero: Martian_Astronomer: Eh, forgiveness in Christanity is contingent on 1.) Repentence and 2.) Begging for it.

I'm no Christian by any means, but I used to be for a time and still know some, and I can say at least for a non-denominational protestant that is not how it works.

You're right. Repentance is a change of mind; a will to do what is right. It isn't begging God to forgive you constantly after each and every mistake or sin you've commit. This is why the Gospel, at least in the King James Bible, says that belief is sufficient. Today's modern translations wash down that message and introduce works-based or performance-based salvation. That is another gospel, and the Bible doesn't say very nice things about those who preach another gospel.

You're not saying anything counter to my point. Repentence does not mean perfection, but it does mean a sincere, conscious rejection of past behavior. You're not considered "saved" if you have no intention of changing your behavior, and in the various commentaries on Church governence in the New Testament "repentence" is the only acceptable response to being confronted with sin. My while point was that it's quite consistent for churches to reject people for "wrongdoing" or "insubordination," and not expect them to ignore it in the name of "forgiveness" if the rejected party has not condemned his own past behavior.

Also, holding up the King James as a gold theological standard is probably not a good idea.

netgamer7k:This is why the Gospel, at least in the King James Bible, says that belief is sufficient. Today's modern translations wash down that message and introduce works-based or performance-based salvation.

Sin_City_Superhero:The bible is the most widley shoplifted book on Earth. That says a lot.

/citation neededIn any event, it doesn't say much. Publishers churn out 25-100 million bibles a year, depending on what source you trust, every year. 50 Shades of Grey managed to sell 70 million copies. So there's 70 million copies of FSOG available to pilfer and something on the order of 6 Billion bibles. Even if people stole the bible at 1/10 the rate of everything else, the bible just happens to be a bigger target.

What it does say is that the people who steal bibles are Farking morons. They give the damned things away for free. Why steal one?

Satanic_Hamster:Aigoo: Egoy3k: Satanic_Hamster: Page isn't loading for me. Don't suppose I could get a summary?

I finally got through it was pretty anti-climactic. Basically she criticized the southern baptists for criticizing the boy scouts for allowing gay kids to join. They didn't like it and asked her husband to resign.

So, she acted like an actual Christian and they acted like a bunch of hypocrites. Seems to me they should be the ones resigning. Turn in your casserole dishes at the door...or go join the bigoted idiots in Topeka--declare your crazy for everyone to see and make your hatred and anti-Christianity abundantly clear instead of clothing it in respectability.

So what they're saying is that the husband is responsible for everything the wife does...? What's he supposed to be, follow her around and approve all her writings first?

Oh wow dude. How in the holy fark did you get that idea from what I said? Does the idea of reading comprehension completely elude you or have you just not had your coffee yet? I said she acted like an actual Christian and that they are hypocrites who should stop pretending to be Christians. You somehow think that I agree with them that she's in the wrong and they're in the right? Damn, son. That's some seriously farked up logic jumping, even for fark.com

Martian_Astronomer:Bloody William: Not seeing a lot of loving your neighbor or turning the other cheek here. Or any sort of forgiveness. Real Christian.

Eh, forgiveness in Christanity is contingent on 1.) Repentence and 2.) Begging for it. That's why the first step of your typical born-again evangelist is to get you to admit to being a sinner. Saying "I didn't do anything wrong" and not groveling is a sure-fire way to find yourself out on your ass.

/ This is also why churches "accept" gay people on the condition that they admit they're horrible and promise to never have sex

Whenever some of my wacko friends or relatives are watching the PTL or CBN shows, it seems like true repentance is based on the amount of details provided. Granted, I've been able to avoid many such displays, but the ones I've seen are "so, tell us more. Just how many times did you commit adultery, and with who?"

Kurmudgeon:"1 Corinthians 13:24 "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says "

1 Timothy 2:12 " do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. "

Both of these chapters were written after Christ's Crucifixion, known as the Epistles.Therefore, they do not have the same authority as what Christ said or the 10 Commandments.The struggles of the early church do not have to be ours, so let's not act like they are./context//it's important

All of the NT was written after the crucifixion. The oldest were written sixty years after. No one who actually knew Christ wrote a single word of the NT.

Aigoo:Satanic_Hamster: Aigoo: Egoy3k: Satanic_Hamster: Page isn't loading for me. Don't suppose I could get a summary?

I finally got through it was pretty anti-climactic. Basically she criticized the southern baptists for criticizing the boy scouts for allowing gay kids to join. They didn't like it and asked her husband to resign.

So, she acted like an actual Christian and they acted like a bunch of hypocrites. Seems to me they should be the ones resigning. Turn in your casserole dishes at the door...or go join the bigoted idiots in Topeka--declare your crazy for everyone to see and make your hatred and anti-Christianity abundantly clear instead of clothing it in respectability.

So what they're saying is that the husband is responsible for everything the wife does...? What's he supposed to be, follow her around and approve all her writings first?

Oh wow dude. How in the holy fark did you get that idea from what I said? Does the idea of reading comprehension completely elude you or have you just not had your coffee yet? I said she acted like an actual Christian and that they are hypocrites who should stop pretending to be Christians. You somehow think that I agree with them that she's in the wrong and they're in the right? Damn, son. That's some seriously farked up logic jumping, even for fark.com

Are you illiterate?

How the flying fark did you get that idea from what I said? Does the idea of reading comprehension completely elude you or are you just retarded? I said "they." Not "you."

TheShavingofOccam123:The Boy Scouts of America has been forced to confront this issue and cannot hide behind the freedom granted to religious organizations like the Southern Baptist Convention to condemn certain behaviors they deem unacceptable and excluded people based on their interpretation of the Bible.

I put put money in her basket.

Through victory an entirely new social order was to be established that would alter the relationship between the races forever. Unlike so many other Southerners, Lee embraced the new order. After peace had been achieved through unconditional surrender, the South became a vast, heavily occupied military zone with black Union soldiers seemingly everywhere.One Sunday at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Richmond, a well-dressed, lone black man, whom no one in the community-white or black-had ever seen before, had attended the service, sitting unnoticed in the last pew.Just before communion was to be distributed, he rose and proudly walked down the center aisle through the middle of the church where all could see him and approached the communion rail, where he knelt. The priest and the congregation were completely aghast and in total shock.No one knew what to do...except General Lee. He went to the communion rail and knelt beside the black man and they received communion together-and then a steady flow of other church members followed the example he had set.After the service was over, the black man was never to be seen in Richmond again. It was as if he had been sent down from a higher place purposefully for that particular occasion.

That Robert E. Lee was a damn Northern Yankee Democrat.

Wow, I'd never heard that story before but every thing I've read of Lee shows the man was a class act.

I finally got through it was pretty anti-climactic. Basically she criticized the southern baptists for criticizing the boy scouts for allowing gay kids to join. They didn't like it and asked her husband to resign.

So, she acted like an actual Christian and they acted like a bunch of hypocrites. Seems to me they should be the ones resigning. Turn in your casserole dishes at the door...or go join the bigoted idiots in Topeka--declare your crazy for everyone to see and make your hatred and anti-Christianity abundantly clear instead of clothing it in respectability.

So what they're saying is that the husband is responsible for everything the wife does...? What's he supposed to be, follow her around and approve all her writings first?

Oh wow dude. How in the holy fark did you get that idea from what I said? Does the idea of reading comprehension completely elude you or have you just not had your coffee yet? I said she acted like an actual Christian and that they are hypocrites who should stop pretending to be Christians. You somehow think that I agree with them that she's in the wrong and they're in the right? Damn, son. That's some seriously farked up logic jumping, even for fark.com

Are you illiterate?

How the flying fark did you get that idea from what I said? Does the idea of reading comprehension completely elude you or are you just retarded? I said "they." Not "you."

"They."

As in "them."

As in "not you."

Maybe because you quoted me? Generally, when someone quotes an individual, they are referring to what the last individual they quoted said, not what some other individual before them somewhere said. Just a little tip for quoting etiquette--you can delete the irrelevant portion of a quote if it's not actually relevant to what you are talking about. Otherwise, it does appear that you are addressing the last person you actually quoted, and that would be...me.

"Me."

As in "me or I."

As in "not them."

See, I can do that too! ;)

But I can also acknowledge that I misunderstood you, for which I apologize. See, it's not hard.

I finally got through it was pretty anti-climactic. Basically she criticized the southern baptists for criticizing the boy scouts for allowing gay kids to join. They didn't like it and asked her husband to resign.

So, she acted like an actual Christian and they acted like a bunch of hypocrites. Seems to me they should be the ones resigning. Turn in your casserole dishes at the door...or go join the bigoted idiots in Topeka--declare your crazy for everyone to see and make your hatred and anti-Christianity abundantly clear instead of clothing it in respectability.

So what they're saying is that the husband is responsible for everything the wife does...? What's he supposed to be, follow her around and approve all her writings first?

Oh wow dude. How in the holy fark did you get that idea from what I said? Does the idea of reading comprehension completely elude you or have you just not had your coffee yet? I said she acted like an actual Christian and that they are hypocrites who should stop pretending to be Christians. You somehow think that I agree with them that she's in the wrong and they're in the right? Damn, son. That's some seriously farked up logic jumping, even for fark.com

Are you illiterate?

How the flying fark did you get that idea from what I said? Does the idea of reading comprehension completely elude you or are you just retarded? I said "they." Not "you."

"They."

As in "them."

As in "not you."

Not no, I'm not technically "retarded," though I do have a traumatic brain injury, so technically, that could be considered close enough. What's your excuse?

TheShavingofOccam123:No one knew what to do...except General Lee. He went to the communion rail and knelt beside the black man and they received communion together-and then a steady flow of other church members followed the example he had set.After the service was over, the black man was never to be seen in Richmond again. It was as if he had been sent down from a higher place purposefully for that particular occasion.

It's awfully hard to wade back out of the James River with several sacks of rocks are tied to your feet. Just sayin'.

My late Uncle was a Baptist. He was also real close to being a religious fanatic. He could virtually quote the Bible and enjoyed religious discussions. After he died, I went to clean out his house and discovered that though he had very little money, he seemed to have kept the local religious store selling tracts (like Chick Tracts) in business.

The Christian religion is split into various sects. Then those sects are split into more sects. It reaches the point of fractal division, which leads me to believe that they can't even get along with each other.

Then you have to consider those branches like the Branch Dividians, run by the late, insane David Koresh. There were the Shakers -- whose strict religious beliefs about sex wiped them out over 40 years ago. (No children. No new converts.) I seem to recall Jonestown.

Churches often have squabbles, which lead to a chunk of the members splitting away to form their own group made up of 'right' thinkers.

I'm not real sure just exactly what it is that drives folks to believe in a certain form of religion and then squabble over the ways of worship.

We have a couple of major 'temples' whose religion is based on questionable resources, yet they have a huge following and/or major financial resources. The Church of the Latter Day Saints is one. (AKA Moorman.) Scientology is another.

I'm Christian, but tend to avoid churches. I grew tired of the inevitable squabble among the parishioners as to whom is the holiest and who has the most status. Often, there's one quiet guy in the congregation who sincerely believes and who does the most work for the church, acts the most Christian-like and who receives no recognition for it among the more wealthy members squabbling for recognition.

Kind of like that Priest of a small parish who keeps donating the money he gets for a new chapel roof to the poor, gives all of his time to acting like a Priest should and lives in near poverty. He'll never be even considered for Pope though he may be the most worthy.

Southern religions have a history of being somewhat prickly. Like those who handle poisonous snakes, speak in tongues or dance about in evangelistic ecstasy. Intolerance is high.

Then we have the Hellfire and Damnation versions, which seem absolutely convinced that anything fun or enjoyable is going to send you straight to hell.

That's why I am comfortable with my own religion version and don't attend church.

My uncle? He was nuts. Years before he died I sent him to see a shrink. He saw the shrink for quite some time until he lost his job and sank into poverty.

He lost it because after 14 years, surviving many layoffs, when the struggling company was looking for reliable folks to work overtime and on weekends, he refused. A good Christian never works on Sunday. Plus he tended to spread his religious convictions all over the factory floor.He was Baptist -- as I mentioned at the beginning.

Halophilic:arashinogarou: Hey, I was just contrasting OT god's "kill, crush, destroy each other" mentality with NT god's "love each other" mentality. But you do make a good point.

I know you don't believe it, but I think letting the whole "new covenant" line perpetuate is something we can't let continue. The concept of Hell, and the idea that no matter how good you are if you think for yourself you're going there is infinitely more vile than all of the slaughters of the OT. Modern Christians using the NT as cover for the OT are just absurd.

How do you know what I believe? I'm just making observations. I'm certainly no Bible scholar, though you appear to be.

Xenomech:netgamer7k: This is why the Gospel, at least in the King James Bible, says that belief is sufficient. Today's modern translations wash down that message and introduce works-based or performance-based salvation.

Someone hasn't read their KJV Bible all the way through...

/I love the smell of KJV Onlyism in the morning. Smells like...ignorance.

Kurmudgeon:"1 Corinthians 13:24 "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says "

1 Timothy 2:12 " do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. "

Both of these chapters were written after Christ's Crucifixion, known as the Epistles.Therefore, they do not have the same authority as what Christ said or the 10 Commandments.The struggles of the early church do not have to be ours, so let's not act like they are.

While that is one legitimate school of thought, keep in mind that the "inerrant" school of though, which most Baptists embrace, is that every word of the Bible comes from God himself, with the human authors merely scribes or secretaries. Or perhaps I'm confusing the "biblical inerrancy" doctrine with a different doctrine, but the point is, to a fundamentalist Christian, it doesn't matter which human hand was holding the pen -- it's all God's word, word for word.

So it literally doesn't matter whether Jesus said it, Paul said it, or someone else said it, according to these people. It's all something that God said THOUGH some human mouth or pen.

ciberido:Kurmudgeon: "1 Corinthians 13:24 "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says "

1 Timothy 2:12 " do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. "

Both of these chapters were written after Christ's Crucifixion, known as the Epistles.Therefore, they do not have the same authority as what Christ said or the 10 Commandments.The struggles of the early church do not have to be ours, so let's not act like they are.

While that is one legitimate school of thought, keep in mind that the "inerrant" school of though, which most Baptists embrace, is that every word of the Bible comes from God himself, with the human authors merely scribes or secretaries. Or perhaps I'm confusing the "biblical inerrancy" doctrine with a different doctrine, but the point is, to a fundamentalist Christian, it doesn't matter which human hand was holding the pen -- it's all God's word, word for word.

So it literally doesn't matter whether Jesus said it, Paul said it, or someone else said it, according to these people. It's all something that God said THOUGH some human mouth or pen.

And that is where Baptists (and not just Baptists, but many of the nearly 40,000 schisms--an error in itself, according to the text of the book of 1 Corinthians and other portions of biblical text) err. They do not even recognize where Paul clearly says in 1 Timothy (which you take out of context here) "I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting;9in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing,10but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.11Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.12And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.13For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

So in 1 Timothy, Paul is clearly speaking with his own voice, as a man, on his own authority here. This is a letter to Timothy to encourage and instruct him--it is not "the word of the Lord," per se, it is the instruction of the Apostle Paul (1 Tim 1:3 "As I urged you..."; 1 Tim 1:18 "This charge I commit to you...") and nowhere in the extended passage does Paul say that the Lord and not he--Paul--commands thus.

In 1 Cor 14:34, Paul is speaking to order within the church. There are several schools of thought on this, but given the entirety of Scripture and the entirety of 1 Corinthians, it's difficult to believe that Paul is endorsing a view that the Holy Spirit would decline to move on women at all, ever. Especially considering that in the Old Testament, one of the judges over all of Israel was a woman. As a Pharisee, Paul would have been more well aware of this than the believers at Corinth--a Greek city with many formerly pagan converts. Instead, logic and context dictate that Paul is referring in this passage to women asking their husbands for clarification during the service, thus disrupting the service. In the first century, it was often (but not always) the practice that women sat on one side and men on the other (as is still the practice even in some denominations today), so in some services, a woman asking a question of her husband or father involved literally raising her voice almost to shouting level. Women teaching or explaining to other women or to male children could be equally loud and disruptive. Of course, this is only one school of thought on the subject, and it is not the definitive answer. But to dismiss the topic as Paul being misogynistic based on a denomination's out of context traditional teaching does a great disservice to the text and to the writer, in my opinion.

WordyGrrl:mreusone: You know what the problem is with baptists? They don't hold 'em under long enough.

Ahahaha... Can I share that statement with my Mom? Because she's been a Baptist most of her life and a Sunday School teacher for 30-some years. This would totally give her a ROFL.

Feel free! I picked it up somewhere years ago. Having been raised in a fundamentalist Baptist family, I thought it was hilarious. When I shared it with my aforementioned Baptist family members, they did not appreciate the humor.

ChubbyTiger:Xenomech: netgamer7k: This is why the Gospel, at least in the King James Bible, says that belief is sufficient. Today's modern translations wash down that message and introduce works-based or performance-based salvation.

Someone hasn't read their KJV Bible all the way through...

/I love the smell of KJV Onlyism in the morning. Smells like...ignorance.

And I feel sorry for anyone who has. Miserable translation.

/just horrible

I saw a church signboard a while back that said "King James Version Has Never Been Revised." How odd. The very title tells you it's a revision, one made to satisfy a ruler who wanted his very own version of the Bible.

"So it literally doesn't matter whether Jesus said it, Paul said it, or someone else said it, according to these people. It's all something that God said THOUGH some human mouth or pen."

And this is how people get confused. It does matter, The Bible is a history as well as religion.Who said what, why and when, DOES matter.Next thing you know you'll have people equating the book of Leviticus or Paul with The Messiah then bad things start to happen.

WordyGrrl:I saw a church signboard a while back that said "King James Version Has Never Been Revised." How odd. The very title tells you it's a revision, one made to satisfy a ruler who wanted his very own version of the Bible.

The first known book written to explain basic slight of hand magic was called Discoverie of Witchcraft. The goal of that book was to show that magic isn't real, witches don't exist, etc. King James didn't like that at all, so he had the book banned and they burned every copy they could find.

JuggleGeek:WordyGrrl: I saw a church signboard a while back that said "King James Version Has Never Been Revised." How odd. The very title tells you it's a revision, one made to satisfy a ruler who wanted his very own version of the Bible.

The first known book written to explain basic slight of hand magic was called Discoverie of Witchcraft. The goal of that book was to show that magic isn't real, witches don't exist, etc. King James didn't like that at all, so he had the book banned and they burned every copy they could find.

When someone burns books because he hates other people knowing the truth, it rather makes it hard for me to trust his "translation" of the bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discoverie_of_Witchcraft

Interesting stuff, indeed. You sent me off on a few searches about that King James Version. Apparently, he ordered that the "new translation" be strictly compatible with the ideologies of the Church of England at the time (i.e., anti-Puritan), and only allowed translators to use a handful of approved references while they did the job. Yeah, that says "control freak" among other things.